profile_rsc_stream

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the analysis scope (bloated chunks, waterfall, security hazards) but does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, what output it produces, or if any side effects occur. 'Analyzes' implies non-destructive, but that is not made explicit.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that packs a lot of specific value (purpose, detection criteria, security references) without redundancy. Every clause adds information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple with one parameter, but there is no output schema and no explicit description of return values or limitations. The description covers what it detects but not what the agent should expect in the response. This leaves a moderate gap for a specialized analysis tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter is already well-documented. The description's mention of 'text log' adds little beyond the schema's 'Raw line-separated Flight stream text payload.' Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool analyzes RSC Flight stream text logs and specifies three concrete detection targets (bloated chunks, waterfall bottlenecks, security exploits). This verb-resource pairing is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_render_summary or find_spurious_renders.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool should be used when analyzing RSC Flight stream logs for performance and security issues, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Clear context without exclusions aligns with a score of 4.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.